AbstractOpinion polls report that the pubic is increasingly critical of perceived judicial leniency in sentencing. To examine the degree and pattern of judicial leniency, Illinois judges and laypersons were asked to impose sentences on the same offenders. Contrary to the myth of judicial leniency, the sentences given by laypersons tended to be equal to or less severe than those given by judges. Explanations are offered for the divergence between myth and reality, including the availability heuristic and the impact of biased recall.